We’re on pace for 4°C of global warming. Here’s why that terrifies the World Bank.
Posted by Brad Plumer
on November 19, 2012 at 11:28 am

Over the years at the U.N. climate talks, the goal has been to keep future global warming below 2°C. But as those talks have faltered, emissions have kept rising, and that 2°C goal is now looking increasingly out of reach. Lately, the conversation has shifted toward how to deal with 3°C of warming. Or 4°C. Or potentially more.

And that topic has made a lot of people awfully nervous. Case in point: The World Bank just commissioned an analysis (pdf) by scientists at the Potsdam Institute looking at the consequences of a 4°C rise in global temperatures above pre-industrial levels by 2100. And the report appears to have unnerved many bank officials. “The latest predictions on climate change should shock us into action,” wrote World Bank President Jim Yong Kim in an op-ed after the report was released Monday.

So what exactly has got the World Bank so worried? Partly it’s the prospect that a 4°C world could prove difficult—perhaps impossible—for many poorer countries to adapt to. Let’s take a closer look at the report:

1) The world is currently on pace for around 3°C to 4°C of global warming by the end of the century. In recent years, a number of nations have promised to cut their carbon emissions. The United States and Europe are even on pace to meet their goals. But those modest efforts can only do so much, especially as emissions in China and India keep rising. Even if all current pledges get carried out, the report notes, ”the world [is] on a trajectory for a global mean warming of well over 3°C.” And current climate models still suggest a 20 percent chance of 4°C warming in this emissions scenario.

2) The direct consequences of a 4°C rise in global temperatures could be stark. Four degrees may not sound like much. But, the report points out, the world was only about 4°C to 7°C cooler, on average, during the last ice age, when large parts of Europe and the United States was covered by glaciers. Warming the planet up in the opposite direction could bring similarly drastic changes, such as three feet or more of sea-level rise by 2100, more severe heat waves, and regional extinction of coral reef ecosystems.

3) Climate change would likely hit poorer countries hardest. The World Bank focuses on poverty reduction, so its climate report spends most of its time looking at how developing countries could struggle in a warmer world. For instance, a growingnumber of studies suggest that agricultural production could take a big hit under 3°C or 4°C of warming. Countries like Bangladesh, Egypt, Vietnam, and parts of Africa would also see large tracts of farmland made unusable by rising seas. “It seems clear,” the report concludes, “that climate change in a 4°C world could seriously undermine poverty alleviation in many regions.”

4) Yet the effects of 4°C warming haven’t been fully assessed — they could, potentially, be more drastic than expected. Perhaps the most notable bit of the World Bank report is its discussion of the limits of current climate forecasts. Many models, it notes, make predictions in a fairly linear fashion, expecting the impacts of 4°C of warming to be roughly twice as severe as those from 2°C of warming. But this could prove to be wrong. Different effects could combine together in unexpected ways:

Quote:

For example, nonlinear temperature effects on crops are likely to be extremely relevant as the world warms to 2°C and above. However, most of our current crop models do not yet fully account for this effect, or for the potential increased ranges of variability (for example, extreme temperatures, new invading pests and diseases, abrupt shifts in critical climate factors that have large impacts on yields and/or quality of grains).

What’s more, the report points out that there are large gaps in our understanding of what 4°C of warming might bring: “For instance,” it notes, “there has not been a study published in the scientific literature on the full ecological, human, and economic consequences of a collapse of coral reef ecosystems.”

5) Some countries might not be able to adapt to a 4°C world. At the moment, the World Bank helps many poorer countries build the necessary infrastructure to adapt to a warmer world. That includes dams and seawalls, crop research, freshwater management, and so forth. But, as a recent internal review found, most of these World Bank efforts are focused on relatively small increases in temperature.

This new World Bank report is less sure how to prepare for a 4°C world. “[G]iven that uncertainty remains about the full nature and scale of impacts, there is also no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible.” That’s why, the report concludes, “The projected 4°C warming simply must not be allowed to occur — the heat must be turned down. Only early, cooperative, international actions can make that happen.”

So what sorts of actions might that entail? The International Energy Agency recently offered its own set of ideas for curbing greenhouse-gas emissions and keeping future warming below 2°C. That included everything from boosting renewable energy to redesigning the world’s transportation system. But so far, nations have only made small progress on most of these steps.

To what extent do you wish to research? Do you wish to wait until the end of the earth as we know it for acceptable confirmation or is there another plateau you would find acceptable?

Happy Thanksgiving.

It depends on what people are trying to get us to do. If someone argues that we should each be more conscientious about our own personal footprints and do what we can to avoid unnecessarily impacting the environment around us, we don't need any more research. If they're arguing that we ban the use of fossil fuels completely even if it drives us back into a pre-industrial lifestyle, it's going to take a lot more research to make the case.

Hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving. Happy Black Friday.

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

Under the best case reduction scenarios of greenhouse gases, we've already delayed the onset of the next ice age for a long, long time. Under current continental positions and earth's orbital patterns, it is projected the CO2 levels would need to be well below 300 ppm for an ice age to occur.

So if the goal is to prolong our interglacial period through altering the earth's atmosphere, we can declare mission accomplished. Under no greenhouse gas reduction scenario advocated by anyone are we going to have an ice age any time soon (tens of thousands of years).

Under the best case reduction scenarios of greenhouse gases, we've already delayed the onset of the next ice age for a long, long time. Under current continental positions and earth's orbital patterns, it is projected the CO2 levels would need to be well below 300 ppm for an ice age to occur.

So if the goal is to prolong our interglacial period through altering the earth's atmosphere, we can declare mission accomplished. Under no greenhouse gas reduction scenario advocated by anyone are we going to have an ice age any time soon (tens of thousands of years).

I have seen a ton of conflicting studies on this. I'm not seriously advocating this just trying to illustrate a point. BUT there are also a fair amount of climatologists that think CO2 is a trailing indicator of warming/cooling not a leading factor... so it could all be pissing in the wind on either side.

In a real debate on the science I am in the solar camp.. but I'll freely admit that is a BELIEF because we simply don't have near enough data to come close to an inkling of an understanding.

Another belief of mine is that we won't come close to accurate modeling until we solve one major major issue. Raw computational power. We simply don't have the ability to process the equations without taking shortcuts. In theory, quantum computers can solve this problem and help us take some giant leaps forward.

In the meantime, I have little problem with being "green" and I definitely think we should spend the money on the research BUT I take massive issue with the constant barrage of guesswork being passed off as scientific certainty. This politicization/media influence over science is disgusting. I am also disappointed in those who simply swallow it than spit it back out as they KNOW it without doing one ****ing iota of their own research deeper into the matter. (To be clear, that statement is definitely NOT directed toward cdcox)

So it is a documented fact that that hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory problems increase on days when air pollution is worse.

Contributors to air pollution number in the millions, if you consider individual automobiles.

Are you suggesting that we get rid of all regulations and if I incur a hospital bill for an air pollution related incident that I should file millions of lawsuits for fractions of a penny for each individual that contributed to the problem?

Your bolded common law strict liability but your post doesn't show that you address it.

The only way to prevent and walk back global warming is for humans to do something that no species has ever done: intentionally limit its own growth.

We're not going to do that. Global warming is a reality we will have to face. Hopefully it will not cause a complete ecological collapse, but there's an excellent chance that humans are going to make their planet very very inhospitable, at least for themselves.

But one thing humans are good at is coming together in times of crisis to fix the problem. I have a lot more hope for drastic mitigation efforts, like shooting tiny mirrors in the atmosphere, than I do for any sort of growth-curtailing preventative measures. Sadly mitigation will probably cost 10 times more. But that's just what we do.

Well then enlighten me about how you propose I be protected from the adverse effects of air pollution under your strict liability plan. I can't read your mind.

Can start here:

Did the govt, via the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service prevent the BP oil spill? Nope.

That Department has a spotty record as well as had other ethics issues.
Yet BP has to pay a fine to the govt. LOL! I'm sure it will go to good use.

Has BP paid out 16 billion in compensation and claims to others? Yes.
They paid a class-action settlement to resolve litigation brought with private plaintiffs
that is over 100,000 individuals and businesses who claimed economic and medical damages from the spill.

The former is your model—bureaucracy. The latter is strict liability.

As I said before, these two models were debated extensively in past threads. IIRC Taco John, myself, banyon and a few others took part in it. It’s all here somewhere with links and cases, including some of the cases you listed earlier. I don’t feel like re-doing by re-typing and searching for previous links again. If you want to know more you can use the search here or go to sites that support strict liability like CATO, FEE, Mises and Independent Institute. I'm just going to be making the same case as them and they will be more thorough. That is if you really want to be enlightened.

Climate scientists who have been warning of the dangerous effects of global warming now have the World Bank on their side, after a new report from that organization calling for action to prevent climate catastrophe.

"The World Bank did a great service to society by issuing this report," said Michael Mann, a climate researcher at Pennsylvania State University and the author of " The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars " (Columbia University Press, 2012).

Climate deniers often claim that solutions to global warming are part of a "global socialist agenda," Mann told LiveScience.

"The fact that the World Bank — an entity committed to free market capitalism — has weighed in on the threat of climate change and the urgency of acting to combat it, puts the nail in the coffin of that claim," he said.

A changing world

The report, issued by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics for the World Bank, urges nations to work to prevent the Earth from warming 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) past pre-industrial averages. Already, global mean temperatures are running about 1.3 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) hotter than before the onset of the industrial revolution.

Likewise, carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is high and rising. As of September, the concentration was 391 parts per million, a record high, up from a pre-industrial 278. That number is now rising by about 1.8 parts per million each year.

All of these changes are accompanied by ice loss, including accelerating melting in Greenland, according to research published this week. As a result, average sea level has risen between 6 and 8 inches (15 and 20 centimeters) or so on average around the world.

Dire warnings

But what the World Bank warns of is an even bleaker future. Even if the world's nations deliver on their promises of emission limits and global warming mitigation, there is a 20 percent chance that the world will hit the 4 degrees C mark by 2100, according to the report. If emissions continue as is, the planet may reach that point by the 2060s.

International negotiators have agreed that warming should be limited to just half that, or 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), in that time. A world that is 2 degrees warmer would have its own consequences, but it is crucial to hold that line, the World Bank report argues. A 4-degree warming would mean a sea-level rise of 1.6 to 3.2 feet (0.5 to 1 meter) on average, with the tropics catching the brunt of the change.

Climate research also suggests tropical storms would strengthen and drought would increase across much of the tropical and subtropical world.

"A world in which warming reaches 4 degrees C above pre-industrial levels (hereafter referred to as a 4 degree C world), would be one of unprecedented heat waves, severe drought, and major floods in many regions, with serious impacts on human systems, ecosystems, and associated services," the authors wrote in the World Bank report.

Climate scientists agree.

"I am inclined to think that things will break before we get there," Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said of a 4-degree-C world. Ecosystems would change so much and agriculture would be so disrupted that the result would likely be "major strife, conflicts and loss of population," Trenberth told LiveScience.

Among the flashpoints, according to the World Bank report, would be sparse water availability, food insecurity and loss of resources such as coral reefs, which are threatened by acidification as more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the oceans. Coral reefs provide not only food to many local economies, but also tourism dollars. Areas becoming unsustainable would likely lead to mass exodus, creating environmental refugees, Mann said.

Avoiding the 4-degree world

Avoiding the 4-degree-warmer world is a matter of political will, said Mann, who sees signs of optimism, including increased awareness and more calls to transition away from fossil fuels.

"The alternative energies (wind, solar, geothermal, etc) are there," Mann wrote in an email to LiveScience. "We just need to deploy and scale them up by investing immediately in the necessary infrastructure."

Slowing the warming may be as useful as stopping it, Trenberth said.

"It is not just the absolute amount of warming, but also the rate at which
we change things to get there," he said. "Two degrees warming in 50 years is extremely stressful, but 2 degrees warming in 500 years is perhaps manageable through adaptation."

If the world fails to act, the world will become a more disrupted, damaged place, the World Bank concluded — and the poor will suffer most.

"The projected 4°C warming simply must not be allowed to occur — the heat must be turned down," the authors wrote. "Only early, cooperative, international actions can make that happen."

Did the govt, via the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service prevent the BP oil spill? Nope.

That Department has a spotty record as well as had other ethics issues.
Yet BP has to pay a fine to the govt. LOL! I'm sure it will go to good use.

Has BP paid out 16 billion in compensation and claims to others? Yes.
They paid a class-action settlement to resolve litigation brought with private plaintiffs
that is over 100,000 individuals and businesses who claimed economic and medical damages from the spill.

The former is your model—bureaucracy. The latter is strict liability.

As I said before, these two models were debated extensively in past threads. IIRC Taco John, myself, banyon and a few others took part in it. It’s all here somewhere with links and cases, including some of the cases you listed earlier. I don’t feel like re-doing by re-typing and searching for previous links again. If you want to know more you can use the search here or go to sites that support strict liability like CATO, FEE, Mises and Independent Institute. I'm just going to be making the same case as them and they will be more thorough. That is if you really want to be enlightened.

Sure, this model can work for a one off event with a single clearly identifiable polluter. And it was used in the BP case.

How do you apply strict liability to my air pollution case, where polluting is a normal part of every day business or activity of individuals and there is no single easily identifiable culprit? How go I go after those liable for my health problems and decrease in quality of life?

Sure, this model can work for a one off event with a single clearly identifiable polluter. And it was used in the BP case.

Nope. I was used before that. It can be used for many more than one event too.

Quote:

How do you apply strict liability to my air pollution case, where polluting is a normal part of every day business or activity of individuals and there is no single easily identifiable culprit? How go I go after those liable for my health problems and decrease in quality of life?